First of all... shouldn't XP have it's own forum? Or has this already been asked?
Anyway...
Interesting reading from infoworld: <A HREF="http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml" target="_new">http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml</A>
Some highlights:
"...our initial baselining using Office XP and an optimized UI on the Pentium 4 system indicated a lag of a modest 11 percent, but things went downhill from there. The baseline reading for the Pentium III system showed that under Windows XP and Office XP, OfficeBench took 27 percent more time to execute than under Windows 2000 and Office XP."
"Except for a few instances, Windows XP increasingly ate the dust of Windows 2000 as load ramped up, regardless of machine specs or Office version. When the Pentium 4 client with Office XP was tested, script execution generally took between a quarter and a third longer with Windows XP as with Windows 2000, and as much as half again as long with the heaviest load and a stock UI. The Pentium III client fared even worse. Running Windows XP with our heaviest workload and the default UI raised script execution time to more than twice that of Windows 2000."
Also worth noting:
"Our tests on a dual-CPU system indicate that both Windows XP and Windows 2000 run better on an SMP (symmetric multiprocessing) configuration with relatively slow CPUs than on a single-CPU system with a screamingly fast processor. As we added more and more load, the benefits of a dual-processor configuration became more apparent. Both OSes (using Office 2000 and optimized UIs) handled the heaviest workload (scenario 3) nearly 40 percent faster on the SMP client machine than on the single-CPU Pentium 4."
- JW
Anyway...
Interesting reading from infoworld: <A HREF="http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml" target="_new">http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml</A>
Some highlights:
"...our initial baselining using Office XP and an optimized UI on the Pentium 4 system indicated a lag of a modest 11 percent, but things went downhill from there. The baseline reading for the Pentium III system showed that under Windows XP and Office XP, OfficeBench took 27 percent more time to execute than under Windows 2000 and Office XP."
"Except for a few instances, Windows XP increasingly ate the dust of Windows 2000 as load ramped up, regardless of machine specs or Office version. When the Pentium 4 client with Office XP was tested, script execution generally took between a quarter and a third longer with Windows XP as with Windows 2000, and as much as half again as long with the heaviest load and a stock UI. The Pentium III client fared even worse. Running Windows XP with our heaviest workload and the default UI raised script execution time to more than twice that of Windows 2000."
Also worth noting:
"Our tests on a dual-CPU system indicate that both Windows XP and Windows 2000 run better on an SMP (symmetric multiprocessing) configuration with relatively slow CPUs than on a single-CPU system with a screamingly fast processor. As we added more and more load, the benefits of a dual-processor configuration became more apparent. Both OSes (using Office 2000 and optimized UIs) handled the heaviest workload (scenario 3) nearly 40 percent faster on the SMP client machine than on the single-CPU Pentium 4."
- JW
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram